2. pc-audio
  3. 1328246582

Mach2Music mini and Amarra : Huge disappointment

I invite all the fellow Audiogon members than own both the Mach2Music Mini and Amarra to share they experiences.

Mine has been a huge disappointment .

The sound I get from the Mach2Music mini even with the advantage of playing Hi-Res files is mediocre at best and way inferior to the sound of a common CD.
Mach2Music tech support after checking that every setting is correct and everything is as it should dropped the ball. They blame the mediocre sound I'm complaining about on Amarra newer version of software they say more stable but sounding not so great.......

To me It doesn't add up. When there are problems the old music start playing: It's someone else fault. May be it's just that the Mach2Music mini is not so great as some say to start with.......

After spending over $4000 on the Mach2Music web site purchasing all the best available upgrades to possibly get the best possible sound from this computer based system, including their top of the line cables (power, USB, Firewire) an optional solid state SSD hard drive besides their special sandwich case to reduce vibrations and the expensive software Amarra, I get instead the sound you would from a cassette player.........at least that's how it sounds to me in my audio system....

My audio system as you read below is of high quality and well balanced where everything from acoustic treatment to power treatment has been closely matched starting from a dedicated room 20x24x9H fully treated with massive use of acoustic diffusers Gikq7 and bass traps Soffits and Tritraps by GikAcoustics.

Audio components connected to the Mach2music mini are:

DAC : dCS Debussy 24/192
Pre: BAT VK52SE upgraded with 6H30DR supertubes Reflector 1987.
Amp: 2x BAT VK600SE Mono
Transport ; Oppo 95
Speakers ; Magnepan 20.1
Speaker cables : MIT Oracle Matrix HD90
Interconnect : MIT Oracle Matrix XLR
Power: 2x Torus RM20 (one x each amp on two dedicated 20 amp circuits)
Power cords all MIT Oracle ZIII
Audio rack Adona Zero reference
All internal and external stock fuses replaced with HiFi Tuning Supreme.

I rarely write on the forum but this is too big of a screw up to pass and I hope to save to somebody the frustration I went thru.

Besides if some of you has a very positive experience with other computer based systems please share . Help is always appreciated.

I hear good things about Solos by Meridian or the USB Thumb reader by Bryston and I'll probably move on one of the two.... life continues......

so if you'll see my Mach2mini for sale on Audiogon in the near future you already know why..............................
128x128alessandro1
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Hi pettyofficer,
The main reason there aren't more computers designed for music is there is no need. There are some laptops that are said to be for music, but they are only an attempt to have a built in sound card & reasonable ins & outs on the go for recording etc.

Nearly every studio I have been in uses a standard powerful mac as a brain. The converters etc are external hardware devices. I.e protools, Apogee, UAD,RME,Weiss, Prism sound, metric halo. Mainly FireWire.

Some have specially set up PCs. I use both PC & Mac.

The question should be why are there no standards in Hifi? Not just computer audio. Choice is a good thing until there is too much. Then there is only confusion.

Hifi is full of confusion due to many many opinions about what is good or best. Mainly by people who don't know what the original sound of the record they are playing actually was! So then we get into taste. Not an exact reproduction of the master.

Computers are great levellers. My computer replaced elitist über transports. I have never looked back. Just the thought of browsing through all those disks now seems so alien. Before you leap in with " oh but the SQ..." at worst it's the same and at best it's better in SQ. By "better" i mean like the master. In my case SQ is better due to this & its more convenient & its cheaper!

A great leveller... How can you complain? If you want the finest SQ with a computer based system there are just some procedures to follow. Just workout what you want in SQ.
pettyofficer
462 posts
 
Chadeffect- does it ever occur to you that this lack of
Standard in the Operating System for Computer Audio- can
only lead to mixed results when used for High End Audio?
You are not going to win listeners that way, neither are
you gonna win by shaming those who have problems with varying S.Q. issues with Computer Audio. Since it isn't
designed for any consistency at all, how can you possibly
measure what is good, or best? I fail to see any planning
(Design) here at all!
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Pettyofficer,
any Hifi system will have variable results. Computer based or not. My understanding of your complaint is shifting slightly now over a couple of different threads.

I think your complaint still is about set up. But it's about which version of which software you can run on what operating system. If this is the issue, then I understand.

So with that in mind you fall into a couple of camps.

1 latest version of everything. So update regularly. This is easy although a pain in the butt sometimes.

2 get it all to a point where you are happy & do not update. Just enjoy.

I must admit with a PC I recommend the later point. Although keep Security updated.

The SQ differences are pretty slight once you have set up the main software issues although functionality is probably better.

Hope this helps.
hfisher3380
167 posts
 
There's also no standard for turntables or CD players. The former can use all kinds of different designs - direct drive, belt drive, idler wheel, suspended sub chassis, linear tonearms, pivoted tonearms, unipivots, MM/MC cartridges...CDP employ a wide, wide range of DACs, some are balanced and others single-ended...solid state, tube, SET...box speakers, planar speakers....the list goes on and on...but no standards!

We can decide for ourselves what we think sounds good and is designed properly.

And I don't exactly see anyone here "shaming" those who don't find satisfaction in "computer audio". But you've been trying to shame us for two pages now - as if those of us who adopt this "new format" are responsible for the varying results others may obtain.

"Computer audio" is no different from any other format. It has wrinkles. It ain't perfect. Consumers will ultimately decide if it affords them something as good as or better than what they already have. In my case it is in the process of replacing my CDP because it sounds better. Others like yourself may disagree. That's the beauty of a free society, we can all choose what works for us.

Again, I would suspect not many around here really care whether you adopt "computer audio" or not. I certainly don't. But your disorganized rants are becoming tiresome.
pettyofficer
462 posts
 
Hfisher3380- there is no Audio Format that has a more
fluid Standard than Computer Audio, and you KNOW IT!
You are using "WHAT" to replace all other Audio Formats-
a high pressure Firehouse? Well, I guess that will "BLOW"
alot of people away. This is supposed to help in Sound
Quality, and Musicality- open a Firehose directly into the
ear canal point blank range? Yeah, o-kay...an Audio experience to replace all other Audio Formats. Maybe if you
reduce the fluidity, and pressure a tad more people might be more receptive to your forcefullness in Computer Audio.
More to discover